If I understand this correctly, the Navy Yard shooter had been visited by police in Newport, R.I., about five weeks before the shooting. He had called the police because he was terrified by the walls, floors, etc., talking to him. Apparently Navy officials felt there was nothing they could.

Why on Earth wasn’t he taken to a hospital for evaluation on the basis that he was an imminent threat to himself and others? Any individual who is delusional and/or hallucinating is at very high risk for harming himself and others because he’s very emotional, doesn’t perceive reality, and believes things that are not real.

One promising pathway to decreasing the number of shootings and other violence would be to train police to recognize when an individual needs to be professionally evaluated for mental problems. This would increase the likelihood of disturbed individuals being evaluated and treated before these tragedies occur — which would be good for everyone.

Audrey Brodt, Littleton

This letter was published in the Sept. 20 edition.

Navy Yard mass murderer Aaron Alexis kept his security clearance while being treated for serious mental illness symptoms and in spite of years of documented incidents of violent, out-of-control behavior. At the same time, the rest of us have been forced to give up all rights to privacy in our everyday communications and are subjected to shoe removal and a lengthy list of inconvenient requirements involving clear plastic bags and tiny bottles every time we want to board a plane.

How can the tradeoff of rights and convenience for security imposed on us be justified while such serious and blatant red flags are completely ignored? It would be a joke of it weren’t so tragic.

Felice Sage, Littleton

This letter was published in the Sept. 20 edition.

The Navy Yard shooter reported to police a month before the killings that he heard voices. He had undergone mental health treatment. He had been discharged from the service due to a problem with “misconduct.” He had repeated run-ins with his military superiors and the law. Yet this and other incidences did not affect his security clearance.

Restrictive gun laws will create more killings since only criminals will have guns. We need sensible laws to control people who are mentally ill. We need to make it clear to those in authority they must report these people and can do so without recrimination.

I am sure no one grieves more than this man’s family. He should have been stopped. All of us need protection from these people.

Lillian Fish, Englewood

This letter was published online only.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Restrictive gun laws will create more killings since only criminals
will have guns. We need sensible laws to control people who are mentally
ill. We need to make it clear to those in authority they must report
these people and can do so without recrimination.

I fully agree that we don’t need any more gun laws, but we need many, many, many more surveillance laws for all Americans to be searched for mental illness so they don’t shoot their guns into crowds or at their loved ones.

See, it would be sooooooooooooooooooooooooo much easier to enact many more new laws to surveil our neighbors and family to assess their mental health and then take them into custody and pay the lawyer fees to take their guns, or pay their mental health bill to ensure they can keep their gun.

Yeah, that’ll work.

Best,

D

rightwingliberal

Again, you make no sense. You might need a refresher course on HIPAA, and as peterpi stated, sort of, due process and the rights of the mental health patients. When you figure out how to get people on a national mental health registry without violating their rights, then you will have something. Till then, keep spewing your vomitous troll drivel and prove to the world that you are loonier than a conservative Southern Baptist.

Dano2

When you figure out how to get people on a national mental health
registry without violating their rights, then you will have something.

Tell that to the gun fetishists who will say anything would be better than lowering the rate of gun sales to a small, scared, white minority.

And thanks for the comedy!

Best,

D

rightwingliberal

Yet most gun crimes are committed by blacks and hispanics. You are pretty safe from us white guys. I wonder what your fetish is, locked up in a dark basement all day. Or do you live under a bridge.

fedupwithgungrabbers

I think he lives under a bridge. He’s some kind of thick-headed troll.

Dano2

What the gun manufacturing lobby doesn’t tell you (to keep you scared and consuming their ammo) is that The Brown don’t kill crackers.

That’s right: the dusky hordes don’t go hunting scared white people.

But let’s not let facts dispel our irrational fear.

Best,

D

toohip

Just can’t leave the bigotry out of the discussion? I guess when you have a belief agenda, you can’t leave out the sordid details.

thor

Those who practice the soft bigotry of low expectations shouldn’t point out bigotry in others. Especially when it isn’t there.

toohip

oooh, you had me with the privacy of HIPPAA, and the rights of mental health patients,. . then you had to resort to right-wing trash talking. Even right wing liberals are “nice.” Try it sometime, you get more people to listen to your point.

mrfxx

Folks seem to believe that both doctor patient privilege and lawyer client confidentiality are sacrosanct, which is untrue.

For doctor patient privilege, here are 2 common reasons for what might seem to some to be a breach:
Criminal liability: this pertains mostly to psychiatric care. If a patient tells the psychiatrist about having committed a crime or that they are thinking about committing one, the psychiatrist may be compelled to report it to the authorities. Psychiatrists will not always report it because they want the patient to express everything freely.

Harmful Action: Although doctors are typically restricted from breaking patient confidentiality, doctors are also restricted from causing harm to others. If a patient’s actions would cause harm to others, the doctor may be compelled to break the privilege. The most common occurrence of this exception is when a patient has HIV or other sexually transmitted disease wishes to have unprotected sex with partners who have no knowledge of the patient’s condition.

I found the above by Googling “doctor patient confidentiality exclusions” – and got over 45 million hits.

toohip

you forgot the “/sar/” logo ;o) The hypocrisy of the right, asking for what they loath. . gov’t surveillance on private citizens.

peterpi

Felice Sage, spot on!

thor

I guess each of us will surprise the other when we agree on something.

toohip

I believe we can agree on Ms Sage’s irony of security differences in these examples, but “the red flags” which NOW seem obvious . . were not obvious in the fast-track procedures to get contractors access to secured work sites. Budget cuts create cursory electronic checks rather that personal follow-ups if a so called “red flag” appears. There’s a lot missing in this “contractor” aspect (see Snowden) of how contractors have access to sensitive data and don’t seem to be held to the same accountability as full-time Federal employees and military personnel.

thor

Ah, two good comments in a row. Nicely done. Except for the constant hammering on bigotry that isn’t there, you do seem able to make decent points once in a while.

Robtf777

The Letters made some good points.

#1 was the lack of intervention in getting the guy some help when he appeared to be delusional.

Apparently the police were concerned enough to forward the police report to other personnel…….but apparently they didn’t think that “concern” rose to the level where he was clearly a danger to himself and others.

It’s a tough call sometimes. When the police do take someone into “custody” on an “involuntary 72-hour mental health hold” …….they do so with the understanding that they must be able to clearly articulate WHY they did so……as various civil rights groups, lawyers, mental health professionals, judges, and even the US Justice Dept could very well do a “Monday-morning quarterbacking job” on what the police did……weeks or months later…….in response to an allegation that the police violated the subject’s civil rights.

“Hearing voices” and thinking that other people may be sending microwaves into his body”……is…..strange……but that does NOT, in and of itself, indicate that the per”son may be a real danger to himself or others…..to the point that he would commit suicide or shoot 30 or so people.

If we interviewed all the homeless panhandlers on the streets of Denver and every person who is a War Vet who goes to the VA Hospital…….I can guaranty you that we would find at least one……and some people would suggest “several” or “a lot”……who are “homeless,” “panhandling,” and/or are “unemployed Vets”……because they have various degrees of……mental, psychological, and emotional problems…….although few people would suggest “locking them all up because they may be the next mass killer.”

#2 Washington DC is one of the most gun-restrictive cities in this country.

The Washington Navy Yard has one of the better “security” arrangements…….with armed guards, metal detectors and the use of “ID-passes”…….than most businesses do…..and certainly much more than Columbine, the Connecticut School, and the Aurora Theater did.

And this guy was able to “breach” that security……with reportedly…..a long gun.

Washington DC is about as close to a “police state” as the Constitution allows it to be.

And the Washington Navy Yard took that “police state” mentality……a little bit farther.

And yet a guy with a history of “illegal use and discharge” of guns……whose military record was not spotless…….who was recently found to be hearing voices and thinking things that made him change motels three times……..was able to get a long gun into the Washington Navy Yard…….simply because he worked there…….and either he found and utilized a hole in the security of that place……or security was slack that day because he was an “employee with a valid pass.”

The Washington Navy Yard……did a LOT of things to actually PREVENT what happened…….from EVER happening. But it happened anyway……because they was a breach or a failure or a hole in that security…..somewhere……and a “criminal”……an “armed criminal”…..took the opportunity to shoot a lot of people.

The rest of us do NOT live in that sort of “police state”…..yet……where we walk through metal detectors to enter or leave our own homes……or our church……or the grocery stores……or buses……or through random metal detectors placed on the streets and sidewalks………although some us us DO walk through metal detectors to enter a public school or to board a plane.

Banning guns and having metal detectors…..everywhere……and having security/police……everywhere……may give us the…..illusion…..of “safety and security”……until someone who works at that place……takes a gun and begins to shoot……and doesn’t stop shooting until he is killed……simply because he COUNTED on…….everyone but him……. being UNARMED.

The Columbine Shooters counted on…..every student and every teacher….being unarmed.

The Connecticut Shooter counted on…..every student and every teacher…..being unarmed.

The Fort Hood Shooter counted on…..everyone else…..being unarmed.

Every Mass Shooter/Killer…..counted on the FACT that……virtually EVERYONE that they initially shoot……is UNARMED……and that they can continue to shoot and shoot and shoot…….all the bullets they want to…….because they COUNT ON the FACT that the police are…..precious minutes away……at the closest…….and NO ONE is going to be capable of stopping him……until someone with a gun finally shows up.

The one obvious exception was the New Life Church…….wherein the Shooter apparently didn’t realize that the Church had armed personnel……and no one had to wait for the police to show to finally put an end to all the shooting he intended to do.

peterpi

Yep, blame it on civil-rights attorneys. If someone is on a 72-hour hold, and a shrink says “Judge, we need more time”, just have the judge say “Heck, take your time, I’m putting an indefinite hold on this nutcase. Use all the time you need. Call me when you think he’s done. Until then, he’s yours for however long you need.”
What’s wrong with due process, Robtf? What’s wrong with the shrinks having to show a judge why someone needs to be held for 30 days or 180 days?
We used to just lock people up. It was extremely easy for cops, relatives, others, to tell a judge that Jane Doe is a menace to society, she’s a loonie. And Jane was never heard from again. Relatives could then ransack her fortune, political opponents could be confident she’d never be heard from again, doctors had plenty of patients to perform experiments on and take the government’s stipend for.
The authorities had plenty of goods on this guy. They failed to follow up. They failed to do their duty.
But nope, it’s those darned nasty civil-rights attorneys — spelled “ACLU”, Robtf? — who are responsible.

toohip

there but for the grace of God. . . .

fedupwithgungrabbers

Lillian Fish: “Restrictive gun laws will create more killings since only criminals
will have guns. We need sensible laws to control people who are mentally
ill.”

She makes a great point here.

Dano2

She makes a great point .(Restrictive gun laws will create more killings …We need sensible laws to control people who are mentally ill) here

I agree with following the…erm…”logic” to its conclusion: we need more laws to allow us to surveil Americans to test their fitness, and to seize their guns based on…on…well, we need a law that allows us to seize guns. That means more gubmint, more lawyers and more mental facilities. Maybe more brown doctors too so we can examine more people and judge them fit to own a projectile killing machine.

We then need more gubmint to administer these laws. More po-po to stop and frisk gun owners. More holding facilities, which can’t be staffed by the same private contractors that allowed this guy (and Snowden) to slip under the radar….

Sounds like a big government lover’s drrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrream!

Best,

D

toohip

It’s the classic “be careful what you ask for.” Dumbing it down won’t make it easy for them to understand. They operate on the fringe, and core facts and reality escape them.

Dano2

I don’t expect the lunatic gunnie fringe to understand – I’m more interested in allowing the vast majority to see just how vapid the gun manufacturer’s (and their stooges’) argumentation is.

Best,

D

IBXNJ

One good question: How did someone who had a less than Honorable discharge get a job with a government contractor and get a security clearance as well??

At least one article stated that he had a “General DIscharge” – which – as they say – is neither fish nor fowl. It is “a ;ess” than an honorable discharge; however it is not an honorable discharge.

toohip

But apparently virtually of the recent mass killers using firearms either passed background checks with no felonies (like Alexis) or evaded background checks which is easy to do if you buy privately or on the internet. Most of the mass killers are not convicted criminals, and most are clinically sane.

Pointing the finger at mentally ill people, is the classic “straw man” argument, because it has no effect, because one, the same pro-gun people are on the right and refuse to provide tax payer funding to identify and help mentally ill people, and two, refuse to use mental health as a criteria of whether a person should be able to buy a firearm. So where’s your solution regarding mentally illness and firearms. . a pretty deadly combination?

fedupwithgungrabbers

My solution regarding mentally ill people and firearms is to improve and strengthen the existing background check system (without expanding it to private sales/transfers). Obviously it could be improved because too many prohibited people are slipping through the cracks. Also, when someone who tries to buy a gun fails a background check, aggressively prosecute them, as the law currently allows. This is something that currently isn’t being done. There are a lot of things you can do to reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands without burdening or taking away the rights of legitimate gun buyers. Still, there’s no magic law that’s going to catch everybody or prevent every shooting. That’s just reality.

Tbone

No she doesn’t. States with more guns have more gun violence.

It’s impossible to have a conversation with the gun nuts until they join reality.

Dano2

I agree with your implication that the dusky hordes are scary. That’s what the gun lobby thinks too. You’d better consume more of their ammo. On sale today!

Best,

D

toohip

Hey Tanner Gun Show this weekend! Get your firearm today! (wonder if anyone’s there to enforce background checks?)

Tbone

Don’t you know that white people have never shot anyone before? It’s all the negros and their uppity attitudes.

toohip

It’s obvious many people don’t live in the real world, but a world of “belief,” be it a political agenda or a just a naivete of ignorance. We live in modern world of democratic rights and freedoms, one of which is the right to privacy. How many of these letter writers would like to have all of their medical treatments and aspects of their private lives shared with the police, their employers, or the public?

We understand the connection between the security clearance and access to sensitive data and people with mental illness treatments or even questionable behavior many feel is “criminal.” But we live in a world of checks and balances, and when those checks don’t list a felony because someone’s behavior was never charged (and convicted) of a felony. . there is no smoking gun (excuse . . ). Alexis was never charged for his behavior of shooting out someone’s tires in anger, or discharging a firearm in his home. And as I stated before on my “Secret” security clearance investigation, back in the mid-70’s for the Defense Mapping Agency, they sent investigators to my home town to interview neighbors and friends. Not today, they conduct an electronic background check and if nothing comes up as a red flag to follow up on, the clearance is approved.

But consider, that it’s not this security clearance that would of prevented Alexis from conducting his rampage. If he didn’t have the clearance and didn’t work at the Navy Yard, he would of carried out this rampage in some other public arena.

But goes Alexis and his personal mental illness problems. . goes a lot of Americans. The key element here is NOT Alexis’s mental illness issues, but his access to firearms. While the gun-right continues to obstruct every possible gun control attempt. . including simple felony background checks, we will never be able to stop what all of us agree. . and whine about AFTER the fact of carnage. . that some people not because of their criminal record but because of their clinical mental illness. . should not be allowed to access firearms. But do you REALLY. . believe the gun right will allow a mental illness background check, when they fight every effort to have felony conviction background checks on private and internet sales? The reality is, they know many of the gun-crazed-right would FAIL a mental illness evaluation background check.

We are all wannabe arm-chair psychologists and we view people like Alexis as “mentally ill” when we get to review all the media reports. But his friends said he was like a brother to them, nice and always helpful, smart, etc. It’s always easy to point fingers AFTER the event and claim he should of been what. . locked up? denied his clearance access? not able to buy that 12 gauge shotgun in easy-to-buy-gun Virginia?

Fact: Virtually all of the mass shooters in the past couple decades were clinically sane. Studies show that only 17% of recent mass shooters had “behavior problems.” Most acted out in anger.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.